fatherpierre

That would then end up with CD players/radios/electric windows etc etc being put in line for a ban.

Cars are still made with *** lighter on them. Where would you stop.

I for one have been given no input on the new smoking laws, and being a police driver would not stop someone for smoking whilst driving. I would if their driving was crap, but not directly for simply smoking. Most poor driving comes from phone users or people messing with their stereos.

Northern Nick

iTrader: (1)

Unsubscribing :wavey:

pslewis

Not from driving under the influence then?

Not from a badly maintained vehicle?

Not from driving at 120MPH in a 20MPH at school leaving time?

NO, fiddling with your **** is the reason

fatherpierre

You'd be surprised how well some pissed drivers can control their cars!

It's usually only the mashed that get caught. Or those just over that get pulled over for another reason.

Or other 'secret' tell tale signs

Lee247

So does mine
There is worse things in life than having a smoke

scoobynutta555

True. I take it you fully support a ban on sports cars, 4x4s, airplanes and booze then All of which can be another mans poison. We've turned into a nation of Mary Whitehouses.

pslewis

I was glad when a copper pulled me over for being drunk in charge a few months ago ....... I thought my steering rack had gone!!

Mk2_heaven

i enjoyed my last ciggie in the pub last night , all the smokers had a ritual last smoke, rather poignant actually .
still will be smoking in there next time too.

The smoking gestapo will only be working a couple of hours a week 9-5 mon - fri so F*** em!

i for one will not be taking any id out with me if i get a Fpn for £50 can you just make it out to M.mouse.

stevebt

iTrader: (8)

the smoking fines are more heavily imposed on the management of a pub !! if they allow you to smoke they are liable to a £2500 fine so its not just the "smoking gestapo" you have to worry about

pslewis

Keyboard Warrior alert!!!!

Only 24% of this country smoke - that leaves 76% of us to remove your ciggies from your lips and stub it out in your eyeball you silly little boy

you WILL stub it out - you WILL shut up moaning and you WILL stop killing the innocents!!

Norman D. Landing

Did I read somewhere that you pretend to design weapon systems? Halfwit.

logiclee

I doubt many landlords are going to risk multiple four figure fines and a non renewal of their license next year so you may find yourself barred.

It's worked well in Scotland and Wales, any breaches have been reported by the majority of the non smoking general public and swift action has been taken against landlords and organisations not complying.
I suspect the same will happen in England.

Cheers
Lee

pslewis

99.9% of the general public WANT a defence system to look after their families - you don't want me to do that then??

What I design will never be used, that is the whole point of it - making innocents breathe in toxic substances every minute of every day is hardly in the same ball-park, now is it? Looks like it is YOU who is the halfwit

warrenm2

Anti-smoking activists can celebrate today one of the most remarkable lobbying campaigns in modern politics. The statutory no-smoking signs outside every "enclosed public space", including churches, synagogues, mosques and Buckingham Palace, will always remind us how they find the smell of other people's smoke offensive. One thing they cannot claim, though, is that protecting people from others' smoke will save thousands of lives.

The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist. In the course of writing a book on "scares", I recently trawled through all the scientific literature on the health risks of tobacco, ever since Richard Doll's seminal paper in 1950 alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer (when 82 per cent of British men were smokers). Over the next 30 years, the realisation that smokers risked serious damage to their health led to a 50 per cent drop in the habit. But this divided people into three groups: more or less addicted smokers, generally tolerant non-smokers and fiercely intolerant anti-smokers.
advertisement

At the end of the Seventies, the anti-smokers first seriously turned their attention to what they called "passive smoking". Over the next decade, it is fascinating to follow how, try as they might, they could not come up with the evidence they wanted to prove that "environmental tobacco smoke" was directly harming non-smokers' health. They became greatly excited by a series of studies which purported to show a link between smoking and cot deaths. But these somehow managed to ignore the fact that, in the very years when cot deaths were rising by 500 per cent, the incidence of smoking had halved.

A further series of studies in the Nineties, mainly in the US, claimed to have found that passive smoking was causing thousands of deaths a year. But however much the researchers tried to manipulate the evidence, none could come up with an increased risk of cancer that, by the strict rules of epidemiology, was "statistically significant".

In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".

In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).

In the early years of this decade, the anti-smokers had become so carried away by the rightness of their cause that they no longer worried about finding disciplined evidence for their statistical claims. One notorious but widely-quoted study commissioned by 33 councils campaigning for a "smoke-free London" came up with the wonderfully precise claim that 617 Britons die each year from passive smoking in the workplace. No longer was there any pretence at serious debate. This was a propaganda war, in which statistics could be manufactured at will. (The European Commission's 2006 figure for annual deaths from passive smoking in the UK was around 12,000, some 20 times higher than the figure quoted by the British Government itself.)

By the time the Commons pushed through the smoking ban in February 2006, a kind of collective hysteria had taken over. MPs fell over themselves in boasting how many lives they were about to save. One Department of Health official was quoted as equating its significance to the Act setting up the National Health Service in 1948.

As clouds of self-righteousness billow out over England this weekend, the anti-smokers may be entitled to give us their view that smoking is a thoroughly noxious and nasty habit, even that it can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma or bronchitis arising from other causes. They can even claim that the ban will save lives by persuading smokers to give up. But the one thing they cannot claim is any reliable evidence for their belief that passive smoking is responsible for killing people. Sir Richard Doll was right. It is merely a sanctimonious act of faith.

fatherpierre

Just back from the pub after a nice birthday Sunday dinner for the wife and family.

Lovely not to be stinking of disgusting baccy fumes.

It was quite comical watching people going out in the rain to feed their habit and coming back in wet and stinking.

Haven'tGotAScooby

Why, oh why, oh why is it not illegal to smoke in the enclosed confines of a car when there are kids in there?

Any low life parents doing this should be SHOT dead!!!

Mk2_heaven

Being called a "keyboard warrior" by Pi**y pants lewis has made my day!

Its a smoking local. both landlord and lady have said they will not be enforcing the ban , some places will not change , that unfortunately for some is fact.

If you dont like it dont go in.

Norman D. Landing

Are you assuming that I smoke?

I can't remember the last time I saw a smoker forcibly hold somebody down and make them smoke.

Do those same 'innocents' hold their breath when you drive past them churning out your toxins? Fcukwit.

Boost II

iTrader: (1)

A couple of points....

Firstly, I've been to Ireland a few times since their ban and the pubs smell mostly of stale beer and farts...worth thinking about, not that pleasant to be honest.

Secondly, why not let market forces dictate. If people are so anti-smoking, let landlords go voluntarily no smoking. No smoking gaffs should be more popular and make more money. Let the smokers go to other second rate smoking pubs and enjoy themselves. I don't very much care for the new labour nanny state telling people what they can't do.

Odds on

I noticed that this afternoon. Farts and fat bird's odour that wasn't noticeable before

golly

Brilliant, some like minded people for once. What pub is it? I would love to have a pint and a smoke!

Mk2_heaven

I couldn`t possibly tell you, you might be with the anti fun police.
You should be able to find a haven, locally theres lots of places flouting the ban, including one place in mayfair where the owner has said he will pay all his customers fines

Dracoro

£2,500 fines for establishments not enforcing the law. Don't see this local in business for long. There's only so many fines of £2,500 they can afford.

pslewis

^^^^ It's all wind talking ^^^^

Of course, they will have to abide by the law - or face shut-down

OllyK

Midland Mainline stations are completely non-smoking and have been for some time, I expect others will do the same.

fatherpierre

All stations are as they're workplaces.

Leslie

You have to ask yourself when you are in your doctor's surgery being told that you have incurable lung cancer whether it was all worthwhile!

Les

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

I don't smoke but the ban is daft and far too nanny state.

FACT this will not save lives. 100% of people alive today will die so how does banning smoking save lives? Most people, smokers or otherwise will die of heart attack, stroke, cancer etc. Once we've taken away the blame from tabs what's next?

5t

SJ_Skyline

All of Silverlink is now non-smoking, including the platforms. It was very nice not having clouds of second-hand smoke wafting down the platform this morning.

OllyK

I sit in the coffe shop while I'm waiting, so it's never been a problem to me anyway. Don't see why they couldn't have just left the bottom end of the platform for smoking, as now you can't get through the front entrance of the station due to crowds of smokers stood there.